Our problems have been Hill not being able to play with the bench for most of the pre-season and gain some chemistry there because he was injured. Not Mike Brown's fault.

Another problem is Dwight Howard getting his legs back underneath him, being rusty and starting to round into form. Again not Mike Brown's fault.

Another problem is our starting unit not having a lot of time in GAME situations to play together but when they did how great did they look? Yeah they seem to be clicking just fine, our bench was the one lacking chemistry then. Why? Because HILL was not there due to injury

Now Meeks is starting to come around, Jamison shows flashes more often than at the start of the pre-season and Ebanks is playing well but iso's a bit too much and on top of that Hill is looking on point if not a little rusty at times.

The issue with the team is lack of playing time due to injuries and players just coming back into the groove of things and needing that time to click which they didn't get in the pre-season but they got some time together which was better than none. Nash is adjusting to being on a team where he DOESN'T have to carry everyone around him. When they set him up for easy shots or situations he isn't used to taking them and is looking for a second pass, this is why he turns the ball over at times, he needs to get used to not having to be "the guy" on a 24/7 basis. It happens when you're on a team where 4/5 of your starting lineup were the franchise players of the teams they played for before they became Lakers.

Nash gets this, why don't you?

Our REAL in terms of "problem" issues on the court are our transition defense, which has more to do with player effort and to do with our players at times over thinking as Brown is constantly on them about it. These are all fixable things and when they start clicking they will be scary. Steve Nash himself has endorsed their struggles and says he enjoys them because it will keep them on their toes and forcing them to constantly get better so they'll never get complacent. (as in no "flipping the switch" mentality) which is good for them.

Some teams like the Kings feel its important to go balls out against us and give full effort(did I mention we outscored their bench 21 to 6 at one point? Why? Because they were playing their starters against them!! )

That on top of the fact Mike Brown is intentionally playing certain players out of their most advantageous positions to save their legs(Pau Gasol for example is playing the perimeter more than the block during the pre-season, this is to save Pau's legs for the season) As Nash put "You'll see more when the games start counting" when it came to Pre-season losses. And as Dwight put it after this game when asked about the pre-season losses Dwight said "I'm not thinking about the pre-season..I'm thinking about JUNE"

That shows you their mentality about it. Game on in 5 days.

But apparently all that went way over your head.

Edited by Majesty, October 25, 2012 - 10:29 PM.

"Bryant had come to rage against the idea that Howard's clownish disposition could overtake the locker room, the Lakers' culture, and had warned Howard that he would never, ever let it happen."

Our REAL issues on the court are our transition defense, which has more to do with player effort and to do with our players at times overthinking. These are all fixable things and when they start clicking they will be scary. Steve Nash himself has endorsed their struggles and says he enjoys them because it will keep them on their toes and forcing them to constantly get better so they'll never get complacent. (as in no "flipping the switch" mentality) which is good for them.

How can you talk about REAL issues on the court and not mention turnovers whatsoever? That's about at the top of the list I'd say.

No, I'm just very aware how overly critical of the guy people are here. Especially in pre-season when it's been stated he's playing certain players in positions to save their legs for the season, which is why we don't see Gasol in the block much and more so on the perimeter.

But those that refuse to do research and act like they know everything have no idea about it and speak as if they are in camp themselves

And who else did he have that could stretch the floor and play better defense at the 2 than Blake off the bench? And please dont' say Goudelock And Ebanks didn't have range last season. So tell me who he should have played at the 2 over Blake that could stretch the floor and played better defense against 2s than him? I really want to know what choice you'd have made.

fyi, Barnes and MWP also had to play the backup 2 for us at times which shows you how lacking the depth was. But go on.

How can you talk about REAL issues on the court and not mention turnovers whatsoever? That's about at the top of the list I'd say.

our turnovers have to do with the point I've already made

"The issue with the team is lack of playing time due to injuries and players just coming back into the groove of things and needing that time to click which they didn't get in the pre-season but they got some time together which was better than none. Nash is adjusting to being on a team where he DOESN'T have to carry everyone around him. When they set him up for easy shots or situations he isn't used to taking them and is looking for a second pass, this is why he turns the ball over at times, he needs to get used to not having to be "the guy" on a 24/7 basis. It happens when you're on a team where 4/5 of your starting lineup were the franchise players of the teams they played for before they became Lakers. "

Their turnovers have to do with more lack of chemistry and overthinking if anything.

overthinking doesn't happen as chemistry improves. So again, not as big a deal.

I'm fine with us turning over the ball as LONG as we get back on defense to stop fast breaks.

But this while "turn it over and then leave it a 4 on 1 while not hustling down court" stuff that's been happening? No.

If our transition defense gets better I won't worry so much about the turnovers because at least we'd be getting set at the other end so the teams can't run on us.

But when Nash beats Ebanks in a footrace down the court on transition defense, there's a problem. That's why Mike Brown was screaming at him.

Edited by Majesty, October 25, 2012 - 10:34 PM.

"Bryant had come to rage against the idea that Howard's clownish disposition could overtake the locker room, the Lakers' culture, and had warned Howard that he would never, ever let it happen."

Can we wait 1 full game is over before we start panicking lol I agree Coach Brown hasn't been sensational but we dont have an alternative though. We're stuck with him. We basically replaced all his assistants and we're playing Rick Adelman's offense (whom Mike was picked over). Go figure. That is a management faulty decision. Mike is limited in offense everyone knew that hes trying I can at least give him some credit for that

And who else did he have that could stretch the floor and play better defense at the 2 than Blake off the bench? And please dont' say Goudelock And Ebanks didn't have range last season. So tell me who he should have played at the 2 over Blake that could stretch the floor and played better defense against 2s than him? I really want to know what choice you'd have made.

Stop mentioning defense whenever bringing up the reasons for Blake as a 2 guard over Goudelock. He can't play defense and either the 1 or the 2, and he certainly couldn't play the SG position effectively. I don't know where this notion comes from, there is zero evidence of him being anything less than a horrible defensive player the last two years. He can't play defense at the 2, period. He never was capable of that, he consistently got burned by the opposition whenever he was matched up with someone at that position.

He had a 2 guard in Goudelock who has actually played the position for most of his life, one that could space the floor and actually knock down open looks, but he refused to play him. In the back-to-back against the Hornets and Grizzlies midway through the season, Kobe Bryant played 100 out of a total of 106 minutes in two games that went to OT. He had zero clue on how to manage his rotations all year long.

Its hard to teach an old dog new tricks, Mike and Nash may have to compromise and thats good. Encourage Nash to do what he wants but at the same time, run the Princeton sets just as much to mix it up... exclusively choosing one over the other is too predictable

Can we wait 1 full game is over before we start panicking lol I agree Coach Brown hasn't been sensational but we dont have an alternative though. We're stuck with him. We basically replaced all his assistants and we're playing Rick Adelman's offense (whom Mike was picked over). Go figure. That is a management faulty decision. Mike is limited in offense everyone knew that hes trying I can at least give him some credit for that

Mike seems to be focusing on a couple of plays that worked with Gasol/Bynum last year with the offense, that are working better with Gasol/Howard this year as well as trying to fix and work on our defensive holes(transition defense, and one on one playing angles defense that seems to be working with Nash as he's played BETTER defense than I've seen in a while)

while Eddie Jordan seems to be the main guy that's working with them on the Princeton.

And it's pretty much in Nash's hands to choose what we're gonna run depending on the defense he sees set up and our players have to recognize what Nash wants to run when he calls it.

When nash wants to come down and run a Princeton set our players need to recognize it, and when Nash comes down asking for a P&R our players have to recognize it.

I remember seeing at times Nash would call for a PnR and Sacre would be a little late or hesitant getting there.

These are all chemistry things once they understand each other. So not HUGE issues, just annoying issues while they iron out. But when they are ironed out which shouldn't take but a month or so, we'll look spectacular. Even so we have enough talent to cover that. But we can't keep letting teams outhustle us on transition. Nash out there on a hurt ankle at 38 years old beat Ebanks down the court tonight on fast break defense this is why Mike Brown was screaming at Ebanks over effort.

That's what it comes down to imo

Stop mentioning defense whenever bringing up the reasons for Blake as a 2 guard over Goudelock. He can't play defense and either the 1 or the 2, and he certainly couldn't play the SG position effectively. I don't know where this notion comes from, there is zero evidence of him being anything less than a horrible defensive player the last two years. He can't play defense at the 2, period. He never was capable of that, he consistently got burned by the opposition whenever he was matched up with someone at that position.

He had a 2 guard in Goudelock who has actually played the position for most of his life, one that could space the floor and actually knock down open looks, but he refused to play him. In the back-to-back against the Hornets and Grizzlies midway through the season, Kobe Bryant played 100 out of a total of 106 minutes in two games that went to OT. He had zero clue on how to manage his rotations all year long.

Blake plays better defense than Goudelock and, has a better handle than him and is a better passer. We could go on and on about it but ALL Goudelock has shown the ability to do at the NBA level is shoot, make him put the ball down he struggles, put him in the PnR he struggles, ask him to find someone open he struggles. Blake can do all of those things. He may not do them great, but he does them better than Goudelock along with playing better defense than him, they are pretty much the same size so picking Blake over Goudelock is a no brainer in that situation. Dunno why people still argue this.

Edited by Majesty, October 25, 2012 - 10:41 PM.

"Bryant had come to rage against the idea that Howard's clownish disposition could overtake the locker room, the Lakers' culture, and had warned Howard that he would never, ever let it happen."

And who else did he have that could stretch the floor and play better defense at the 2 than Blake off the bench? And please dont' say Goudelock And Ebanks didn't have range last season. So tell me who he should have played at the 2 over Blake that could stretch the floor and played better defense against 2s than him? I really want to know what choice you'd have made.

fyi, Barnes and MWP also had to play the backup 2 for us at times which shows you how lacking the depth was. But go on.

.

Ebanks....

Blake didn't spread the floor for [expletive].....he was breaking shots left and right. Then he would get raped on the defensive end. Pass.

And I don't remember Drew shooting 3s and not participating in huddles when PJ was here./closed

Blake plays better defense than Goudelock and, has a better handle than him and is a better passer. We could go on and on about it but ALL Goudelock has shown the ability to do at the NBA level is shoot, make him put the ball down he struggles, put him in the PnR he struggles, ask him to find someone open he struggles. Blake can do all of those things. He may not do them great, but he does them better than Goudelock along with playing better defense than him, they are pretty much the same size so picking Blake over Goudelock is a no brainer in that situation. Dunno why people still argue this.

Blake cannot play the pick and roll and neither does he do anything with the ball on the floor. He can't penetrate the opposing defenses because he's too tentative with average handles and speed. Steve Nash, at 38 years old with a bad back, can penetrate the paint more effectively and often than Steve Blake. It's a basic skill when it comes to pointguards and Blake can't even accomplish that. As a result, he is useless in the P&R because there is no threat of a drive. He can only pass the ball off and spot up to brick jumpers. That's it.

Blake can barely bring the ball up the court when teams play defense on him. Have you not seen how sloppy he is on the perimeter at the end of shot clock? Blake does nothing great at the shooting guard position to justify playing him there for so many minutes last season, absolutely nothing. He can't stretch the floor because he's a below average shooter (below 38% on a majority of WIDE OPEN looks in the last two years), can't collapse a defense because he has zero ability in penetrating that paint, and he is deifnitely not a facilitator. Passing the ball along the perimeter or feeding either Bynum or Kobe in isolation last season did NOT make him a facilitator.

There is no improvement in defense, what is so hard to understand? You keep saying this as though Blake were Tony Allen or something, where the difference in defensive ability is actually relevant. Blake is a terrible defender at both the 1 and the 2 positions. He does nothing of note, at all. Never has. Goudelock isn't a good defender either, but he can shoot the hell out of the ball and can actually play like a legitimate 2 guard. Something that Blake was incapable of last season.

Blake barely gave anything to us on the offensive end at the 2 and would get rapped on the defensive end.

So why not put in a guy that would most likely put up the same or better offensive numbers and that doesn't get raped every possession on defense.

/Logical

I asked you specifically who could stretch the floor better than Blake as well as play the defense at the 2. And you said Ebanks.

Ebanks could NOT stretch the floor better than Blake last year. You would have to give me someone that could do both. That could play better defense than Blake at the 2 while also stretching the floor better than him. Aside from MWP and Barnes(who each got turns at the backup 2 at times) there was no one else.

"Bryant had come to rage against the idea that Howard's clownish disposition could overtake the locker room, the Lakers' culture, and had warned Howard that he would never, ever let it happen."

I asked you specifically who could stretch the floor better than Blake as well as play the defense at the 2. And you said Ebanks.

Ebanks could NOT stretch the floor better than Blake last year. You would have to give me someone that could do both. That could play better defense than Blake at the 2 while also stretching the floor better than him. Aside from MWP and Barnes(who each got turns at the backup 2 at times) there was no one else.

I don't care what you asked. Im telling you what would have made the team better. Ebanks at the 2.

Blake cannot play the pick and roll and neither does he do anything with the ball on the floor. He can't penetrate the opposing defenses because he's too tentative with average handles and speed. Steve Nash, at 38 years old with a bad back, can penetrate the paint more effectively and often than Steve Blake. It's a basic skill when it comes to pointguards and Blake can't even accomplish that. As a result, he is useless in the P&R because there is no threat of a drive. He can only pass the ball off and spot up to brick jumpers. That's it.

Blake can barely bring the ball up the court when teams play defense on him. Have you not seen how sloppy he is on the perimeter at the end of shot clock? Blake does nothing great at the shooting guard position to justify playing him there for so many minutes last season, absolutely nothing. He can't stretch the floor because he's a below average shooter (below 38% on a majority of WIDE OPEN looks in the last two years), can't collapse a defense because he has zero ability in penetrating that paint, and he is deifnitely not a facilitator. Passing the ball along the perimeter or feeding either Bynum or Kobe in isolation last season did NOT make him a facilitator.

There is no improvement in defense, what is so hard to understand? You keep saying this as though Blake were Tony Allen or something, where the difference in defensive ability is actually relevant. Blake is a terrible defender at both the 1 and the 2 positions. He does nothing of note, at all. Never has. Goudelock isn't a good defender either, but he can shoot the hell out of the ball and can actually play like a legitimate 2 guard. Something that Blake was incapable of last season.

Blake plays the pick and roll better than Goudelock, is better at perimeter passing than him, and plays better defense than him, and is also better at setting people up than him. We could talk all day about how terrible Blake is at it compared to the likes of Steve Nash or other guards on the Lakers team but we're SPECIFICALLY talking about last year.

The ONLY thing Goudelock had over Blake last was was his ability to hit wide open shots, that's it. And unfortunately they needed him for more than that, they needed him to be able to find guys when he drew attention, he didn't. They needed him to play defense on opposing 2s, he couldn't. They needed for him to be able to know what the heck to do when he was double teamed off a screen, he didn't, and if you've seen the pre-season, he still doesn't.

Blake had more aspects to his game than Goudelock had and that's why he, metta world peace and matt barns both got more burn at that position than he did. When you break it down, the only advantage Goudelock had over Blake was shooting the three wide open. But he has shown time and time again that if he;s pressured defensively or double teamed he struggles with the rest of them.

This is why Goudelock was out there as more of a 1 rather than a 2 during Blake's time out because he could operate from the top of the key or hit wide open shots. But when he's moved to the 2 he struggles because he can NOT put the ball down or play off or on a PnR situation, it was a weakness in his game last year and as even real deal will tell you, his shooting is better suited coming off the dribble than being a spot up guy.

That's pretty hard to do when you can't put the ball down against an NBA type defense and he barely got a chance to do it last year.

Simply put, he wasn't good enough to play the 2 over blake because what he DIDN'T offer, outweighed what he did. Simple as that.

I don't care what you asked. Im telling you what would have made the team better. Ebanks at the 2.

That's because you can't answer it.

Edited by Majesty, October 25, 2012 - 11:02 PM.

"Bryant had come to rage against the idea that Howard's clownish disposition could overtake the locker room, the Lakers' culture, and had warned Howard that he would never, ever let it happen."